Marijuana is Medicine "Journal of the American Medical Association" concludes

For me, personally, i don't need any more research, I use for my disease and it helps me. I don't need a medical journal to confirm my findings I've
personally experienced. But for the people who still seem to be stuck in "reefer madness" world I feel they need MORE evidence, apparently, so yes,
the low-quality evidence may not be convincing to some, but to me it shows that there's something here worth exploring..

As mentioned, the link in the OP is the only link I had looked at, and was the top link when I did a search for 'Marijuana legalization'. I certainly
am not trying to pull anything over on anybody, if there is a fault in how the article in the OP is written then it is with the journalist involved in
originally publishing it. It still seems accurate in that the AMA has said it is medicine in some form, especially for MS patients. As the months and
years go by with more medically sanctioned studies then the data will show which diseases marijuana helps and which it doesn't. The more legitimate
studies the better on the effectiveness or uneffectiveness of this original folk medicine.

For me, personally, i don't need any more research, I use for my disease and it helps me. I don't need a medical journal to confirm my findings I've
personally experienced. But for the people who still seem to be stuck in "reefer madness" world I feel they need MORE evidence, apparently, so yes,
the low-quality evidence may not be convincing to some, but to me it shows that there's something here worth exploring..

And that's perfect. You want to use it and you shouldn't have to follow that up with reasons. It helps you in whatever way you think it does and
that should be enough.
But once you start making the claim that this can do the same for everyone else - THAT is when the doctors and scientists will step in and say "meh"

originally posted by: MrPlow
Furthermore, and I would hate to kill the celebratory mood, but take a walk through a major medical journal such as pubmed and look for the studies
that oppose medical legalization.
You will get your heart broken. I've found studies which conclude that not only does marijuana do jack squat for cancer or anxiety, but that it
actually causes or aggravates it.

For every low quality study used by the "pro" crowd, there are just as many in the "con" crowd.
I'm telling you - this isn't the fight you want to be having.

Find me a legal drug that doesn't have pro and con studies associated with it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Wait all you want - that's not the point.
My point is - this study is no where near as conclusive and earth shattering as the OP is making it out to be.
Sure, there is low quality and even moderate evidence - but that means squat and based on THAT evidence alone, legislators will continue to argue
against it. Ultimately It's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole.

If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your
nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Believe me, I agree. Though keep in mind, it is only recently that we've been able to talk about the plant at all. The site's sponsors used to be WAY
stricter about this topic. So I'm, personally, grateful for the allowances we currently have. Though I will always be in favor of more ability to
speak freely.

I've been saying since my first year of really knowing of ganja that "marlboro greens" would be a thing in our lifetime. I think it's an
overall good. Just hope they put relevant cautions and keep the science flowing on all the benefits and repercussions. They got the side label on
smokes talking about risk of inceased complication during pregnancy, hopefully they can have something like "increased risk of psychosis if you have
x92lg genetic polymorphism". It'll be fun to see how this plays out over the years.

originally posted by: MrPlow
Furthermore, and I would hate to kill the celebratory mood, but take a walk through a major medical journal such as pubmed and look for the studies
that oppose medical legalization.
You will get your heart broken. I've found studies which conclude that not only does marijuana do jack squat for cancer or anxiety, but that it
actually causes or aggravates it.

For every low quality study used by the "pro" crowd, there are just as many in the "con" crowd.
I'm telling you - this isn't the fight you want to be having.

Find me a legal drug that doesn't have pro and con studies associated with it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Wait all you want - that's not the point.
My point is - this study is no where near as conclusive and earth shattering as the OP is making it out to be.
Sure, there is low quality and even moderate evidence - but that means squat and based on THAT evidence alone, legislators will continue to argue
against it. Ultimately It's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole.

If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your
nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.

Edit - Alaska is legal as well, for both. Medical did not come before recreational.

originally posted by: MrPlow
Furthermore, and I would hate to kill the celebratory mood, but take a walk through a major medical journal such as pubmed and look for the studies
that oppose medical legalization.
You will get your heart broken. I've found studies which conclude that not only does marijuana do jack squat for cancer or anxiety, but that it
actually causes or aggravates it.

For every low quality study used by the "pro" crowd, there are just as many in the "con" crowd.
I'm telling you - this isn't the fight you want to be having.

Find me a legal drug that doesn't have pro and con studies associated with it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Wait all you want - that's not the point.
My point is - this study is no where near as conclusive and earth shattering as the OP is making it out to be.
Sure, there is low quality and even moderate evidence - but that means squat and based on THAT evidence alone, legislators will continue to argue
against it. Ultimately It's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole.

If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your
nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.

originally posted by: MrPlow
Furthermore, and I would hate to kill the celebratory mood, but take a walk through a major medical journal such as pubmed and look for the studies
that oppose medical legalization.
You will get your heart broken. I've found studies which conclude that not only does marijuana do jack squat for cancer or anxiety, but that it
actually causes or aggravates it.

For every low quality study used by the "pro" crowd, there are just as many in the "con" crowd.
I'm telling you - this isn't the fight you want to be having.

Find me a legal drug that doesn't have pro and con studies associated with it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Wait all you want - that's not the point.
My point is - this study is no where near as conclusive and earth shattering as the OP is making it out to be.
Sure, there is low quality and even moderate evidence - but that means squat and based on THAT evidence alone, legislators will continue to argue
against it. Ultimately It's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole.

If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your
nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.

this study is not helpful to the cause of legalization at all, and if you turn on a television or a radio, the media will be echoing that sentiment.

I live in California and have a recommendation. While I can demonstrate that I have that rec for a specific medical purpose, the medical system is
heavily abused in California. You go into a shop here and it isn't about "delivering medicine." It's about selling a plant for the highest price
possible to whomever can produce convincing documentation.

If we want legalization we need to stop trying to prove we NEED it for medical purposes.

A large portion of the population wants to smoke it to get high, and there is no credible scientific reason to keep them from doing so.

originally posted by: prostheticmind
this study is not helpful to the cause of legalization at all, and if you turn on a television or a radio, the media will be echoing that sentiment.

I live in California and have a recommendation. While I can demonstrate that I have that rec for a specific medical purpose, the medical system is
heavily abused in California. You go into a shop here and it isn't about "delivering medicine." It's about selling a plant for the highest price
possible to whomever can produce convincing documentation.

If we want legalization we need to stop trying to prove we NEED it for medical purposes.

A large portion of the population wants to smoke it to get high, and there is no credible scientific reason to keep them from doing so.

That is the slant that should be taken in regard to this issue.

I agree.
People speak of marijuana as if it's completely and totally lacking of a potential to be abused.
One needs to look no further than the states where it is legal for medicinal purposes.
Anything from a headache to nervousness when around the opposite sex and a well concocted story is reason enough to necessitate a prescription.
If that kind of behavior isn't drug abuse, then I don't know what is.

originally posted by: MrPlow
Furthermore, and I would hate to kill the celebratory mood, but take a walk through a major medical journal such as pubmed and look for the studies
that oppose medical legalization.
You will get your heart broken. I've found studies which conclude that not only does marijuana do jack squat for cancer or anxiety, but that it
actually causes or aggravates it.

For every low quality study used by the "pro" crowd, there are just as many in the "con" crowd.
I'm telling you - this isn't the fight you want to be having.

Find me a legal drug that doesn't have pro and con studies associated with it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Wait all you want - that's not the point.
My point is - this study is no where near as conclusive and earth shattering as the OP is making it out to be.
Sure, there is low quality and even moderate evidence - but that means squat and based on THAT evidence alone, legislators will continue to argue
against it. Ultimately It's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole.

If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your
nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.

Well then. I was wrong.
It appears as though a shaky medical argument is the better route to legalization after all.

Very well. I concede.

I just hope the day doesn't come where our elected officials feel they have been duped and everyone is pushed back into another complete prohibition.

I wish they'd come out and admit that prohibition was a monumentally stupid idea that has solved nothing but that'll never happen.

The first steps have been successful... next we need MJ to be reclassified so the DEA will lose its power to hassle growers and dispensaries. After
that, we'll be on a good solid path toward AT LEAST letting each state decide how they want to proceed. As it stands, many states won't push the
issue while it's illegal at the federal level.

originally posted by: prostheticmind
this study is not helpful to the cause of legalization at all, and if you turn on a television or a radio, the media will be echoing that sentiment.

I live in California and have a recommendation. While I can demonstrate that I have that rec for a specific medical purpose, the medical system is
heavily abused in California. You go into a shop here and it isn't about "delivering medicine." It's about selling a plant for the highest price
possible to whomever can produce convincing documentation.

If we want legalization we need to stop trying to prove we NEED it for medical purposes.

A large portion of the population wants to smoke it to get high, and there is no credible scientific reason to keep them from doing so.

That is the slant that should be taken in regard to this issue.

Again, medicinal is the first step toward recreational. It has worked so far.

There are many proponents who think this should be an "all or nothing" issue but the federal government will choose "nothing" in that scenario every
single time.

This isn't about ideals and principles, it's about what will actually work. There wouldn't be a single state with recreational marijuana right now if
they hadn't opened the door first with medicinal use.

originally posted by: MrPlow
Furthermore, and I would hate to kill the celebratory mood, but take a walk through a major medical journal such as pubmed and look for the studies
that oppose medical legalization.
You will get your heart broken. I've found studies which conclude that not only does marijuana do jack squat for cancer or anxiety, but that it
actually causes or aggravates it.

For every low quality study used by the "pro" crowd, there are just as many in the "con" crowd.
I'm telling you - this isn't the fight you want to be having.

Find me a legal drug that doesn't have pro and con studies associated with it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Wait all you want - that's not the point.
My point is - this study is no where near as conclusive and earth shattering as the OP is making it out to be.
Sure, there is low quality and even moderate evidence - but that means squat and based on THAT evidence alone, legislators will continue to argue
against it. Ultimately It's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole.

If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your
nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.

Well then. I was wrong.
It appears as though a shaky medical argument is the better route to legalization after all.

Very well. I concede.

I just hope the day doesn't come where our elected officials feel they have been duped and everyone is pushed back into another complete prohibition.

I wish they'd come out and admit that prohibition was a monumentally stupid idea that has solved nothing but that'll never happen.

The first steps have been successful... next we need MJ to be reclassified so the DEA will lose its power to hassle growers and dispensaries. After
that, we'll be on a good solid path toward AT LEAST letting each state decide how they want to proceed. As it stands, many states won't push the
issue while it's illegal at the federal level.

I thought Obama instructed the DOJ to stop hassling growers and dispensaries.

originally posted by: MrPlow
Furthermore, and I would hate to kill the celebratory mood, but take a walk through a major medical journal such as pubmed and look for the studies
that oppose medical legalization.
You will get your heart broken. I've found studies which conclude that not only does marijuana do jack squat for cancer or anxiety, but that it
actually causes or aggravates it.

For every low quality study used by the "pro" crowd, there are just as many in the "con" crowd.
I'm telling you - this isn't the fight you want to be having.

Find me a legal drug that doesn't have pro and con studies associated with it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Wait all you want - that's not the point.
My point is - this study is no where near as conclusive and earth shattering as the OP is making it out to be.
Sure, there is low quality and even moderate evidence - but that means squat and based on THAT evidence alone, legislators will continue to argue
against it. Ultimately It's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole.

If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your
nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.

Well then. I was wrong.
It appears as though a shaky medical argument is the better route to legalization after all.

Very well. I concede.

I just hope the day doesn't come where our elected officials feel they have been duped and everyone is pushed back into another complete prohibition.

I wish they'd come out and admit that prohibition was a monumentally stupid idea that has solved nothing but that'll never happen.

The first steps have been successful... next we need MJ to be reclassified so the DEA will lose its power to hassle growers and dispensaries. After
that, we'll be on a good solid path toward AT LEAST letting each state decide how they want to proceed. As it stands, many states won't push the
issue while it's illegal at the federal level.

I thought Obama instructed the DOJ to stop hassling growers and dispensaries.

In legal states, yes... for now.

The problem is, that all could change with the next election. Removing MJ from Schedule 1 would be a more permanent solution.

I actually don't mind the idea of prescription marijuana. Government-funded and controlled grow operations, at least up here in BC Canada, may
actually produce stronger and more varied strains. I think right now edibles are still illegal. And every now and then there are still gang-related
incidents at the medical grow-ops. But in the long run, it might be better off without them (the gangs). And government can reap taxes etc. As for
synthetic Big Pharma weed - they can # off. LOL

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.